From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] Android PM extensions (version 3) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:23:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20090225132353.GA5109@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <1234316955-31304-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <20090217210504.GD1433@ucw.cz> <20090222134852.GB1436@ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Arve Hj?nnev?g Cc: ncunningham@crca.org.au, u.luckas@road.de, swetland@google.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > There is no requirement for the kernel api to match the user-space > api, it is just less confusing. The android java apis provide a > wakelock interface. We cannot change this api, but the both the in > kernel api and the api from the kernel to user space can be changed. > > I did a quick poll here. 2 people preferred suspend_inhibitor and 3 > people preferred wake_lock. The people who preferred wake_lock did not > like the word inhibit(or). Block(er) was suggested as an alternative. suspend_block / suspend_unblock sounds fine to me. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html